Arnold v. Krug’s Empirical Analysis
1937
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently December 1968
1 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Kerns v. Lewis · Kane v. Detroit Life Insurance · Germain v. Loud · Culligan v. Alpern · Kyselka v. Northern Assurance Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where, without reservations, both parties ask for directed verdict, the court may determine the case and need not submit it to the jury even though there be room for conflicting, inferences from the testimony. * * * “When, in addition to his motion to direct, a party presents requests to charge the jury, it negatives his intent to waive the right to have a jury pass upon the case; and if his motion to direct is denied, he is entitled to go to the jury on any proper issue of fact. Kane v. Detroit Life Ins. Co., 204 Mich. 357 ; Burkheiser v. City of Detroit, 270 Mich. 381 (97 A. L. R. 621). “It follows also that one may reserve his right to go to the jury, on denial of his motion to direct, by any definite claim to the court to that end, made upon the record. The reservation need not be by written request to charge. “Possibly some of the confusion may have been caused by the original acceptance of the rule by this court without discussion of its extent and underlying principle. To clarify the situation, we adopt the statement in 18 A. L. R. 1433 and 69 A. L. R. 634, which is sustained by the weight of authority, as follows: “ ‘Where each of the parties to an action requests the court to direct a verdict in his favor, and makes no request that the jury shall be allowed to determine any question of fact, the parties will be presumed to have waived the right to a trial by jury, and to have constituted the court a trier of questions both of law and of fact.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““On the other hand, he (driver on a trunk line highway) must keep such look-out ahead and to the sides and down intersecting highways as a reasonably prudent person would do in order to discover possible danger and must act carefully upon the existing conditions.” Arnold v. Krug, 279 Mich. 702, 708 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Perhaska v. Silberg
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.